staf schreef:Lees eens de boeken "Vlamingen aan het oostfront", geen gezever, gewoon rauwe waarheid.
Meermaals wist de SS (Vlamingen), sterk in de minderheid de Sovjets terug te slaan.
Reageer je hierme op mijn post over de "brandweer mythe"? Want ik snap niet helemaal waar je naartoe wil.
Ruimteaapje schreef:In werkelijkheid werde alle snelle gemotoriseerde troepen van Heer en SS voor dit doel gebruikt.
En daar waren die Vlaamse collaborateurs ook bij. Dat ik aantoon dat de SS geen monopolie had op die "brandweer rol" en dat de acties van de Heer daarbij ernstig onderbelicht werden en worden wil nog niet zeggen dat de Waffen-SS niets voorstelde. Ze krijgen alleen wel meer eer dan hen toekomt.
staf schreef:Ja , aan elke eenheid van eender welke natie die tijdens WII strijdde kleeft bloed.
SS,das Heer, Engelsen,Jappen,US Army...
Alleen was het bij de SS (Algemeine- en Waffen) onderdeel van hun politieke indoctrinatie vanuit de nationaal-socialistische ideologie. Het waren geen incidenten maar de norm. Dat is een fundamenteel verschil met de anderen.
staf schreef:Op het einde schrijft de overwinnaar de geschiedenis.
Dat is bewezen niet waar en bij de SS al helemaal niet het geval. Maar daar is al een
topic over:
Ruimteaapje schreef:[...] Laten we wel wezen: het bestaan van dit forum en vele tientallen internationale fora over de Tweede Wereldoorlog, waarop in detail ook door forumleden met een pro-Duitse houding, discussies worden gevoerd, geeft al aan dat de overwinnaars hun stempel niet meer op de beeldvorming kunnen drukken. Een uitzondering is de Holocaust waarover leugenachtig revisionisme vanaf een bepaald punt niet is toegestaan maar daar kan ik het enkel maar mee eens zijn. [...] Direct na de oorlog overheerst, door censuur, tunnelvisie en eenzijdige informatie, de beeldvorming die de overwinnaars ons voorschotelen. Daarna is een periode van circa een halve eeuw nodig om van dit eerste, oppervlakkige beeld een meer genuanceerder en gebalanseerder beeld te vormen. Dit is het werk van onderzoeksjournalisten en historici die dankbaar gebruik maken van de primaire en secundaire bronnen die met het verstrijken van de tijd beschikbaar komen. En daarom mijn stelling dat de overwinnaars uiteindelijk de geschiedenis niet schrijven. Direct na een conflict doen ze dit wel maar binnen een halve eeuw haalt de realiteit hen in. [...]
staf schreef:Remember het Malmedy-proces met Jochen Peiper, de Amerikanen passen die illegale verhoortechnieken noch steeds toe!
Altijd weer Peiper. Geloof de HIAG fabeltjes over marteling toch niet. De advocaten van Peiper hebben simpelweg alle aangeklaagden verzocht een zelfde door hen opgestelde verklaring daarover te ondertekenen. De commissie Simpson heeft echter goed onderbouwd aangetoond dat er van dergelijke mishandelingen hooguit in enkele gevallen sprake is geweest. Daarover meer in dit
topic:
They didn't establish as a fact that torture was used as a method. The report of the Simpson commission mentioned "mock trials and other improper practices" in connection with some of the confessions, but does not specify these practices. "Torture" isn't mentioned and as such was not the reason to commute these death sentences.
During July and August 1948 the Simpson Commission made an investigation of the Dachau cases involving approved but unexecuted death sentences. This investigation was made at the direction of the Secretary of the Army and included the twelve Malmedy accused under approved death sentence at that time. On 14 September 1948 the Commission rendered its report to the Secretary of the Army. Among other things, the Commission recommended that the twelve approved but unexecuted death sentences in the Malmedy Case be commuted to life imprisonment. The Commission gave the following reasons for such recommendations:
a.) The crimes were committed in the heat of one of the most furious battles of the war.
b.) It is extremely doubtful that an American court-martial would impose any punishment more severe than life imprisonment if it were trying members of the American Army who committed like offenses in the heat of battle.
c.) Accused were largely convicted on their own extra-juridical statements and those of their co-accused. Some of the statements were obtained as a result of "mock trials" and other improper practises.
d.) The propriety of many of the methods employed to secure statements is highly questionable. The extent to which these methods were employed cannot be accurately estimated. However, sufficient doubt is cast upon the entire proceeding to make it unwise to proceed with the executions.
Pursuant to the Senate Resolution 42 (Eighty-first Congress), a sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Armed Services conducted an investigation in April, May and June 1949, with reference to the allegations of improper practices by representatives of the US Army in the pre-trial investigations of the Malmédy Case. Hearings were held in both Washington D.C. and in Germany. On 13. Oktober 1949 the sub-committee issued ist report and findings. The sub-committee found that some irragularities were practiced in obtaining confessions from accused and statements from witnesses during the pre-trial investigations and there were some irregularities at the trial. The committee, however, limited its consideration of the case to the probable need for legislation concerning possible future war crimes and made no recommendations concerning the sentences of the accused convicted in the Malmédy Case. In fact, the sub-committee specifically stated that its functions were legislative only, and that it had no function to re-try the cases or act as a board of appeals or reviewing authority, or to make any recommendations concerning the sentences.
[...]
The argument I am putting forward is that your claim that death sentences in the Malmedy Case were commuted to life imprisonment because they were tortured is incorrect. "Improper practices and mock trials" do not equal "torture" and the commission clearly stated that "the extent to which these [highly questionable] methods were employed cannot be accurately estimated". Thus the convicts were not commuted, as you claim, because "they were tortured. fact". The commission recommended to commute the sentences because "sufficient doubt is cast upon the entire proceeding to make it unwise to proceed with the executions." The argument I am putting forward is also that no doubt some prisoners were abused by their interrogators but certainly not all of them. After the trial Everett and later Aschenauer deliberately started a campaign using false statements about torture to get all "Malmédy Boys" off the hook. For this matter they told their clients exactly what to write when they put their complaints about mistreatment on paper. It is indeed quite obvious. One simply has to compare the individual statements to see the pattern.
BTW, "sending them to bed without their blankey" is actually one of the points in the report of the Administration of Justice Review Board earlier in 1948:
c.) That suspects were not deprived of their clothing, but that in some instances cells were not furnished with blankets for short periods of time.
This is one of conclusions a. to r. of this Board that was appointed by the Commander-in-Chief, EUCOM, to make an investigation of allegations of mistreatment of Malmedy suspects held for interrogation during the pre-trial investigation of the case. Their points a., k., l. and m. are interesting:
a.) That there was limited use of "mock trial", probably in eight or ten cases to "soften up"suspects, but that no sentences were pronounced.
k.) That there was a general use of the practise of persuading underlings to talk by telling them the prosecution wanted to get their superiors and was not no much interested in them.
l.) That in certain instances interrogators made threats to suspects that if they did not talk their relatives would be deprived of their ration cards.
m.) That physical force was not systematically applied in order to obtain statements but that undoubtedly in the heat of the moment interrogators on occasions did use some physical force on a recalcitrant suspect.
However, the Board concluded that the practices referred to in a., k., l., and m. in certain instances exceeded the bounds of propriety, but the Board has been unable to identify such cases. Their conclusion marked q. is quite interesting too:
q.) That only 9 out of 73 accused who were convicted took the stand, that it is difficult to understand why the accused who are now claiming duress, violence, etc., did not take the stand at the trial and repudiate their statements and that this fact tends to discredit the allegations now made that the statements were improperly obtained.
Meer informatie over het onderzoek (het Baldwin rapport) in dit
topic
